Tag Archives: Mujahid

17 July 2013: Mujahid Found Guilty of 4 Charges – Sentenced to Death

Today Tribunal 2 issued its fourth verdict in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid. It is the sixth verdict issued by the International Crimes Tribunal. The Tribunal found Mujahid guilty of four of seven charges: specifically Charges 3, 5, 6 (which the Tribunal combined with Charge 1, because both stem from the same events), and 7. He was acquitted of Charges 2 and 4.

The Charges and the Verdict:

  • Charge 1: Abetting Abduction as a Crime Against Humanity, or in the alternative, abetting murder as a Crime Against Humanity. This charge was combined with Charge 6 as the Tribunal felt that both pertained to the same incident, the massacre of the Bangladeshi intellectual community in December of 1971.
  • Charge 2: Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity, or in the alternative, for abetting Genocide by participating in an attack on the Hindu villages of Baidyadangi, Majhidangi and Baladangi. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(g) of the Act and Sections 4(1) and 4(2). Acquitted.
  • Charge 3: Confinement as a Crime Against Humanity for his role in the confinement and torture of Ranji Nath, alias Babu Nath. Found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for five years.
  • Charge 4: Abetting the crime of Confinement and causing Inhumane Acts as Crimes against Humanity under Section 3(2)(a)(g) for his alleged involvement in the abduction and torture of Abu Yusuf. Acquitted.
  • Charge 5: Abetting murder as a Crime Against Humanity for ordering the killing of detainees at the army camp at old MP Hostel, Nakhalpara, Dhaka. Found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
  • Charge 6: Abetting murder as a Crime Against Humanity, or in the alternative, abetting Genocide against the intellectual group. Charged under Section 3(2)(c)(g) read with Sections 4(1) and 4(2). Found guilty and sentenced to death in conjunction with Charge 7.
  • Charge 7: Participating in and Facilitating the commission of Murder as a Crime Against Humanity, or in the alternative, for persecution as a Crime Against Humanity, for his roll in an attack on the Hindu community on 13 May 1971. Found guilty and sentenced to death in conjunction with Charge 6.

The Tribunal noted that it considered Mujahid’s “superior position of authority on the Al-Badar force together with the intrinsic gravity and degree and pattern of criminal acts” as aggravating factors that further justified the death sentence.

The full judgment can be found here: Mujahid Judgment

Additionally, we will be publishing our full summary of the case and the Tribunal’s conclusions in the near future. Please check back frequently for updates. 

4 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments and Prosecution Reply

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

The Defense  completed their closing arguments before Tribunal 2 in the case of Mujahid,  discussing the evidentiary issues and the required elements for liability under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE).

The Required Mental State for Liability Under Joint Criminal Enterprise
The Defense continued their arguments from the previous day and addressed the required mental state, or mens rea, for liability under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). Referring to paragraph 228 of the Tadic (Appeals Judgment) the Defense Imran submitted that the Prosecution has failed to prove the requisite mental state for liability under JCE as they have presented no evidence to establish that Mujahid intended to take part in a common plan or design with any member of Al-Badr or othered armed group for the purpose of committing a crime. The Defense argued that there is no evidence on record showing that Mujahid even had knowledge of an alleged common plan or design. Referring to the allegation that the accused said “usko hotao” (take him away) to his men, referring to a detainee, the Defense argued that these mere words do not prove the mental state of intent and knowledge required for JCE-1, as that type of JCE requires material participation by the Accused. Continue reading →

3 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

Today the Defense continued their closing arguments in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid. They completed their arguments regarding the requirement of effective control by the Accused in order establish liability under Command Responsibility. They also emphasized doubt pertaining to particular charges due to inconsistent witness testimony. The Defense argued that the required mens rea, or mental state, has not been proven in the instant case. Finally the Defense submitted arguments regarding the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) under international law.  Continue reading →

2 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. Selim Uddin  and others                                                     
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid: Defense  Closing Arguments

Tribunal-2 heard contempt proceedings against Selim Uddin and his fellow Jamaat-e-Islam leaders Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam Khan. Selim Uddin, through his lawyer Tajul Islam, provided an unconditional apology to the Tribunal for his derogatory remarks and did not attempt to justify them. Defense counsel Tajul Islam submitted that Selim Uddin did not intend to disrespect the Tribunal. After hearing the apology the Tribunal fixed 9 June 2013 for passing their final order. The two other contemnors Rafiqul and Hamidur again failed to appear before the Tribunal or to submit any explanation of their comments through legal counsel.

After lunch, Defense counsel Abdur Razzaq resumed his Closing Arguments on behalf of Ali Ahsan Mujahid. The Defense discussed the various legal aspects of case along with some of the evidentiary matters regarding the alleged leadership position held by the Accused within Al-Badr, which is a key factual matter in the charges against him. The Defense additionally addressed the following:

  1. Probative value of the documentary evidences.
  2. Defective charges and the lack of specific allegation therein.
  3. Section 4(2) of the 1973 Act and imposing liability for superior / command responsibility. Continue reading →

30 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

30 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

Today Defense counsel Abdur Razzak began his portion of the Closing Arguments in the case of Mujahid. Although he had previously been designated to cover only the legal aspects of the case, he also discussed evidentiary and factual issues as well, particularly issues pertaining to documentary evidence.

The Defense also informed the Tribunal that because the senior Defense team is also appearing before the Appellate Division in conjunction with the Qader Molla case appeal, they would need the Tribunal to accommodate the Defense’s schedule (in particular Mr. Razzak’s schedule). He said that he would only be able to present arguments in the Mujahid case in the afternoon. The Tribunal agreed to accommodate the Defense counsel as far as possible.

Closing Arguments
The Defense noted that the book “Al-Badr” is the primary documentary evidence relied upon by the Prosecution to establish that Mujahid held a leadership position in the Al-Badr forces during the 1971 war period.

The counsel stated that the book refers to the speech of the ’Nezam’ (Head/leader) of Al-Badr, given the night before Pakistan surrendered on 16th December 1971. The counsel submitted that this is the worst possible form of hearsay evidence as there is no reference as to who recalled and reported the meeting, who gave the description of the meeting, when and where such an interview was taken and how the contents of the speech of the ‘Nezam’ could be authenticated. The Defense submitted that without knowing this information, the evidence cannot be relied upon in reaching any conclusion regarding Mujahid’s position within the Al-Badr forces or his alleged guilt. Because the book amounts to anonymous hearsay it cannot be relied upon. Continue reading →